Winamp Dead?

[Futher]

Originally posted by: helpme
V3 killed winamp

Amen. I still use 2.9... better than any other player I've come across.

 

[CrackaLackaZe]

Originally posted by: ming2020
WinAmp 2.79 will be with me, always. :|

Long live oldversion.com!!

Fvck version 5.xx and its bloatware counterparts.

2.81's been out, and 5 is not bloatware.

 

[Abhi]

 

[Vic]

:Q

RIP

 

[andylawcc]

well, no big deal, I mean, I still have my trusty 2.80...

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: TheNoblePlatypus

Originally posted by: SampSon
The only example anyone here is gonig to suggest will be foobar2000.
Personally I don't like foobar2000 at all. People will tout it as great, but these same people think that skinning xp is leet.. so...
Sonique is another option, but their interface is utterly horrible.

Speaking of horrible interfaces, I just tried out Foobar. Why would anyone use this as opposed to Winamp? Unless they're running very subpar machines. It doesn't sound any better and doesn't seem to have any functions that Winamp doesn't. Ah well.

I didn't like the foobar interface at first, but once I found all the customizations you can make to it I enjoy it A LOT more than Winamp. I don't even think I have Winamp installed anymore.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: CtK

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: jtusa4

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I hope it dies.

I like Winamp.

There are better mp3 players.

examples please??

The only example anyone here is gonig to suggest will be foobar2000.
Personally I don't like foobar2000 at all. People will tout it as great, but these same people think that skinning xp is leet.. so...
Sonique is another option, but their interface is utterly horrible.

No, BBLean's skinning is leet--XP's is just wasteful . Anyway, what is possibly wrong with a player that is nothing but a menu and a giant tabbed playlist pane? I was working on a 'modern' Winamp skin to create just that (no tabs) when I found out about Foobar2000.
And it comes with ABX and reply gain plugins, along with easy to use tag editing for multiple files.

 

[skace]

Winamp is still on my machine. They came out and did it right when all the alternatives were complete crap. There are few applications that I actually look back at fondly, Winamp is one of them.

 

[psteng19]

For those of you still on version 2.xx, I recommend trying out 5.x
I wasn't fond of it at first, because like many, it takes awhile getting used to something new.
But once you try it, you can't go back.

It is not much more bloated and has a lot of useful new features (certain features can be disabled to save CPU).
The best feature is being able to search for MP3's on the fly through the media library (like what WMP has).

 

[MetalMat]

I still used winamp, and will continue to use it.

 

[blakeatwork]

Too bad.. it was the first mp3 player I used (I guess around 97), and havent really looked at other players. Hopefully it won't effect the Shoutcast feature..

 

[Savarak]

Those who say foobar2000 doesn't sound as good just hasn't configured it correctly... I used to use Winamp since the beginning but for the past few months ever since I got my Audigy 2 ZS and configured Foobar to use kernel streaming and other things like rate sampling... there is a definate sound quality difference between the two programs

 

[konakona]

Speaking of horrible interfaces, I just tried out Foobar. Why would anyone use this as opposed to Winamp? Unless they're running very subpar machines. It doesn't sound any better and doesn't seem to have any functions that Winamp doesn't. Ah well.

before you write off foobar2000 interface, make sure you take a look at columns_ui, using plisk v1.5. personally i feel this is THE best way to organize your mp3s. one humongous playlist = inconvinient imo (not that it couldnt be done on foobar)

with fb2k you get :
- Open component architecture allowing third-party developers to extend functionality of the player
- Full Unicode support on Windows NT
- a 18band parametric EQ
- masstagger with freedb
- replaygain with clipping attenuation
- a whole slew of funciontality oriented plugins including upsampler, format converter, convolver, several types of crossfeed, diskwriter and much more
- proper cue sheet support
- improved (or un adulterated as opposed to that of winamp) FLAC playback quality => this is already a good enough reason to stick to foobar if you are quality minded
- Kernel streaming output (kinda moot, you could use ASIO on winamp as well... but in case you cant get asio working, this is nice)
- lower memory footprint

downsides? lack of visual plugins. personally i got better things to do while listening to music, but there were some experimental plugins. hopefully they would develop a fully functional one sometime real soon.

foo_pilot - a great 'remote' for those who need one

 

[jspeicher]

i used it when it first came out long ago. but then i discovered this thing call Windows Media Player.

 

iTunes anyone? *ducks* *runs*

 

[asm0deus]

i used to judge my video cards by how well they could play winamp visuals at high settings. v5 will be on my machine until it dies.

 

[pancho619]

Originally posted by: bobalong
After reading every post on this topic.

I'm quite suprised that no-one has mentioned Musicmatch Jukebox

Memory hog! Winamp uses very little resources compared to MusicMatch.

 

[mcvickj]

Originally posted by: dwell
iTunes anyone? *ducks* *runs*

I'm with you on that one. But before I started using iTunes Winamp was the program of choice. A sad day indeed.

 

[dudeman007]

I guess I liked winamp, very powerful, but wmp did it for me.

 

[ElFenix]

i've used winamp since march 1997 and until it stops playing things i want to play i'll continue to use it.

 

[kermalou]

i used to use winamp, but my mp3 collection got so big I was forced to switch over to iTunes and haven't regretted it one bit

 

[Balt]

Ugh, I tried foobar recently and it was just bad. I'm willing to sacrifice a little performance for a much better interface. Does foobar even have a windowshade mode? I couldn't find one.

That being said, I'm still using winamp 2.9x

 

[abaez]

Originally posted by: helpme
V3 killed winamp

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Savarak
Those who say foobar2000 doesn't sound as good just hasn't configured it correctly... I used to use Winamp since the beginning but for the past few months ever since I got my Audigy 2 ZS and configured Foobar to use kernel streaming and other things like rate sampling... there is a definate sound quality difference between the two programs

Depends on what you want.
Me, I want it to play mp3's, nothing more, nothing less.
I don't want it to organize anything for me, no fancy titles, no nothing, just play them.
I organize my mp3's very simply, "Groupname - Songname" by filenames, no id3 tags or anything.

Under these conditions, Foobar is definitely inferior to Winamp IMO.
It's notably slower when jumping to songs, just making it display the titles properly(what would be just %filename% under Winamp) is overly complicated, the interface makes me wanna barf, etc.

I don't give a crap if it uses 10 MB of RAM as opposed to 15 for Winamp, this is 2004, not 1994.

It's all about your needs, and for mine, Winamp is without the shadow of a doubt superior.

 

[KeyserSoze]

This IS sad. I remember back in the days at school, using WinAmp and all of these cool "plugins". Sort of nostalgic more than anything. Sharing mp3's with the rest of the dorm.....ahhh, those were the days.

It's evolution I guess.






KeyserSoze